Since the publication of the Smith Commission report last month, the focus of debate has been almost entirely on how much tax power it gives the Scottish Parliament and whether this matches the “devo-max” pledge made by Better Together.

There has been very little assessment of what these tax powers means in class terms — how far they can be used to strengthen the bargaining position of working people.

For a care worker in the community and voluntary sector, the human consequences of existing cuts are all too obvious.

Will the Smith Commission proposals make it possible to change this?

A positive aspect is the retention of the Barnett formula. This will continue to give Scotland a higher proportional block grant per head, in light of greater social need in Scotland, and give the Scottish government greater freedom to allocate it as it sees fit.

However in light of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement imposing additional austerity cuts of 40 per cent across the public sector, a little more per head can only mitigate a massive slaughter of services.

Already the cuts are being felt at Glasgow City Council, with the Labour-run executive recently committing to a 40 per cent cut to the Glasgow Association of Mental Health despite widespread opposition.

The forecast is even worse, with devastating cuts expected in 2016-17 within the council area.

With services already struggling, the Smith Commission proposals for more tax powers for Scotland itself will only provide a shield if there is the political will to use them.

While it is proposed to give the Scottish Parliament full control of income tax, half VAT and air passenger duty, these powers are not beneficial in and of themselves.

MSPs have to be willing to use them in a country where there is quite as much income inequality as in England and Wales.

The SNP’s new November 2014 programme makes no proposals at all to use the existing powers the Scottish Parliament already has to increase income tax or business rates.

The programme proposes to retain the freeze on council tax until 2017-18, and while the latter may be a popular policy among the electorate, particularly among the better off, it leaves local authorities financially hamstrung and forced to cut public services.

Many in the Yes camp have condemned the Smith Commission for not devolving taxes on wealth and control over corporation tax. But this again has to be looked at in class terms.

Allocating 100 per cent of income tax to Scotland has already enabled David Cameron to demand that Scottish MPs be excluded from voting on income tax in Westminster, making it much more difficult, after the next election, for the Labour Party to secure one of its more progressive demands — a 50 per cent rate for top earners.

The same would apply to taxes on wealth if they were fully devolved.

With wealth disproportionately concentrated in the south-east of England, the devolution of wealth taxes would detrimentally affect, in terms of the voting balance at Westminster, any attempt to introduce a more progressive tax system. Scotland would suffer along with the poorer regions of England.

However, the Smith Commission contains no discussion of the uneven distribution of wealth across Britain or of the need for higher rates of tax overall to ensure greater social equity.

As any trade unionist will know, any real change for the better in terms of the working class will depend quite as much on the strength of the labour movement as on formal tax powers for the Scottish Parliament.

On this front, on equalities and workplace rights, the Smith Commission proposals are disappointing.

And workplace and community power is crucial. If all the major parties are faced with the pressure from an organised working class to find alternatives to austerity — and use the proposed powers in their interests — we will see a significant swing away from the neoliberal orthodoxy in political and economic spheres.

If there is little or no pressure, nothing is stopping the major parties introducing tax cuts in the interests of big business or in the mistaken belief that it will stimulate investment which will make us all prosperous.

A final blind spot in the debate is the lack of any discussion of the EU. The Smith Commission proposes additional borrowing powers for investment. But any attempt to use these funds to develop public ownership or fund industrial redevelopment would be blocked by EU state aid and competition rules.

Unless EU powers over the economy are removed, which can only by achieved at British level, true economic democracy — a democracy based around the transformative potential of public ownership and redistribution — is impossible.

So while the Smith Commission offers some positives, it also presents significant dangers.

We must be aware of where the real battle lies, which is not between unionist and nationalist sentiments but between the power of big business and organised labour.

This in turn depends on the clarity of a left perspective — and today in Scotland some heart can be taken from Neil Findlay’s showing in the Scottish Labour Party leadership election.

The mobilisation that secured 35 per cent support for a socialist opponent of austerity politics represents a base to be built upon in the immediate future.

Of one thing we can be sure. The impact of the proposed powers will only be felt positively if we force the Scottish government to implement them on the basis of social need.

The same battle also needs to be taken to Westminster, and this can only be done through a united working-class movement across all nations of this island. If we can do this, there is nothing that can stop us.

Ryan Boyle is a member of Unison and has recently been elected to represent the STUC Youth Committee on the STUC general council.